Agree and this is one of the reasons we need to spend time on ws2<br><br>On Wednesday, 24 June 2015, Carlos Afonso <<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca">ca@cafonso.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks, Ed. I would like to stress that I do not think the final proposal which will be eventually agreed upon by NTIA and implemented will be the end of the world. I believe there will be a dynamics post-transition which will open new opportunities for further change and hopefully improvementes regarding the points I have been making.<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<br>
On 24-06-15 12:07, Edward Morris wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi everybody,<br>
<br>
I'm in complete agreement with Matt's take on things but would like to make<br>
an additional comment about the GAC and it's participation in this process.<br>
<br>
The GAC does not have a veto. They want to, they threaten one, they do not<br>
and should not have one. The same holds true for the United States<br>
Congress, the multinational corporate community or even the N.T.I.A. All<br>
are stakeholders, part of this cooperative, somewhat messy governance model<br>
we call multi-stakeholder.<br>
<br>
Many of the governments who have been loudest in opposition to what the CWG<br>
and CCWG have been doing are amongst the most repressive and freedom<br>
stiffing in the world. IMHO they will oppose pretty much anything the<br>
community comes up with short of handing responsibility for the naming and<br>
numbers responsibilities to themselves through the I.T.U. I'm sorry if I've<br>
begun to tune them out. I'm looking to work with entities who approach<br>
these issues with open minds and in good faith, not closed minds looking to<br>
sabotage our efforts. I should note that the later involves far more than<br>
certain members of the GAC.<br>
<br>
My broader concern involves the way the GAC is functioning regarding the<br>
CWG and CCWG. We have had active participation by some GAC members in the<br>
CCWG that has been quite constructive and welcome. However, a few of their<br>
members have been inactive yet have been charged with reporting to the GAC<br>
on our proceedings. I am concerned that one of their two official<br>
presenters on things CCWG is a GAC member of the CCWG with an attendance<br>
record of 12%. I spoke with her this morning and she does not understand<br>
the reference model she has been charged with explaining to other GAC<br>
members. This is a concern.<br>
<br>
Carlos, I agree with much of what you have written. I do not like PTI yet<br>
recognise that it is the best we could get out of this mess we call<br>
multi-stakeholderism. Compromise is at the heart of this process. I will be<br>
voting to approve the CWG report on Council later today. In terms of<br>
jurisdiction, I look forward to your active participation as we discuss<br>
this and action upon your concerns in CCWG work stream 2. I think there are<br>
a lot of options in this area that need to be explored. Thanks so much for<br>
raising these important issues at this critical stage of the transition<br>
process.<br>
<br>
Kind Regards,<br>
<br>
Ed<br>
<br>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Matthew Shears <<a>mshears@cdt.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Carlos<br>
<br>
Two thoughts in-line.<br>
<br>
On 6/24/2015 10:20 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi people,<br>
<br>
Just heard China, Indonesia, Brazil and Russia at the GAC meeting today<br>
(June 24). I have been trying to alert NCUC/NCSG that we should think very<br>
seriously about the way the oversight structure may come to be in the IANA<br>
transition. My concern is that we are losing a window of opportunity to<br>
mnimize the strong pressure from a relevant group of countries to change<br>
ICANN's jurisdiction.<br>
<br>
My view is that we should defend an oversight structure which is truly<br>
independent from ICANN, truly international in nature (even if it is<br>
constituted in the USA, although the ideal solution would be for it to be<br>
established outside of the USA, recongnizing there may be jurisdiction<br>
problems in this), and multistakeholder on equal footing.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
When we started the work of the CWG the first model discussions resulted<br>
in independent contracting and oversight through Contract Co and the MRT,<br>
the external model. We fought long and hard to keep those but others<br>
within and outside the WG fought hard for the internal model. We have a<br>
compromise that provides some separation BUT, from my perspective, we<br>
absolutely have to have the accountability enhancements and community<br>
empowerment in place to have some checks and balances on ICANN which will<br>
effectively be overseer, contracting party and operator.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
ICANN remaining in the USA (which I think is unavoidable at least in the<br>
short term) but with an oversight structure which is clearly and<br>
indisputably independent from it will in my opinion contribute decisively<br>
to minimize this mantra from China, Russia and other countries.<br>
<br>
Please note that Brazil is not advocating for moving ICANN out of the USA<br>
(only saying that the jurisdiction theme should not be simply discarded),<br>
but insisting on the importance of a truly independent oversight with<br>
participation of governnents on equal footing in the multistakeholder<br>
structure.<br>
<br>
We seem to be happy with the current proposal which I like to compare to<br>
an impossible concept of a flat and round Earth. Are we really serious in<br>
agreeing to an oversight model in which the parent is overseen by a<br>
subsidiary, whatever the legal exercises and gimmicks are invented to make<br>
us swallow it as workable?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
The current model isn't quite that construct. ICANN is not overseen by<br>
the affiliate PTI. PTI is merely a legal vehicle to ensure some separation<br>
but it is under the oversight and control of ICANN.<br>
<br>
Best.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
FIFA (sorry to bring this to the dialogue) constituted a similar<br>
structure under respectable Swiss professor Mark Pieth - the IGC, as an<br>
internal structure funded by FIFA. We know well the results of the<br>
inefficacy of accountability mechanisms in the FIFA case.<br>
<br>
This is what I would like to have discussed in both the NCUC and NCSG<br>
meetings.<br>
<br>
fraternal regards<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
--<br>
Matthew Shears<br>
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights<br>
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)<br>
+ 44 (0)771 247 2987<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>